Assad was winning his civil war. Then came the video footage of an alleged CW attack on Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus. The US government says it has proof that Assad launched that attack on civilians -- even though the attack served no discernible military purpose and could serve only to draw America into the war. (And even though the evidence suggests that the rockets were fired from a rebel-held area.)
But since the US will not show
its claimed proof, the world questioned the wisdom of airstrikes.
And now we have a BBC Panorama report
, replete with horrifying video, that Syrian jet fighters dropped napalm on schoolchildren.
I fail to see how Assad could ever hope to gain any military advantage by dropping Napalm on children. However, I can easily see how the anti-Assad forces could gain a propaganda
advantage from footage of Napalmed children. Perhaps new information may force me to revise my response, but on first smell, this thing reeks of WWI-style atrocity reportage.
The exquisitely convenient timing of this release tells you all you need to know. So does our first, best question: Cui bono?